The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Sim G wrote: But you’ve illustrated perfectly why regulation will always begat regulation. You say the “old style not the new”. Once restriction bites, it’s easy for governments to tighten it. That’s why the American NRA will resist anything. It may seem unreasonable for them to do so, but they understand how it develops.

It took only 44 years to utterly destroy gun ownership in the U.K. New Zealand was regarded as close to a Utopia for “moderate law” gun ownership. License the individual, not the item, within reason. One incident, by a foreigner, with extremist views, not legally entitled to the firearms, kills 51 and changes a country.

And in NZ, like the UK, if only the laws at the time were actually enforced, those mass shootings may never have occurred. That is also actually true of the US in certain cases. Sometimes bad people do bad things and there’s nothing can be done about it. But when the system fails, blaming the lack of restriction in that system just gives an illusion of improvement rather than any real benefit.

That last paragraph is great Sim G. Mind if I borrow it for a letter to the editor here in NZ?

With such low gun crime in the UK from before we had ANY controls, up to today, both using illegal, and the even more rare 'legally' owned guns, its a huge stretch, IMO, to claim that our strict controls are the cause.

If you look at the figures in the vacuum of just gun control strictness Vs gun crime, the reverse relationship is actually true, (i.e. the tighter things have become, the worse the gun crime has been), however its the socio-economic factors that have caused that, not the firearms legislation. IMO there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever, either negative or positive, between tightening gun laws and the amount of gun crime experienced.

Pippin89 wrote:I don't blame the lack of restriction in NZ, but the lack of enforcement of those restrictions. Hence why I agree with the strict way in which our laws are enforced. You have to say, the chances of a similar incident happening here are pretty slim! I understand why the US don't want a system like ours and what works for us might not work for them. But in terms of keeping guns away from the wrong people (at least legal ones) our system does work. Like I said I don't agree with all of it. Especially with what can and can't be owned and the "licence every gun thats owned" bit but for the checks that happen before a gun can be purchased in the UK, I agree with what we have to go through.
The fact that the current system (or before the recent changes) works is exactly why I disagree with the change to medical assessment. It did work the way it was so why change it?

Sorry Pippin, but I have to challenge you on that view, because it plays straight into the hands of the anti-gun lobby & legislators. And before you know it that will be the end of our sport.

To me the idea that 'the chances of similar incidents happening here are slim' is just plain wrong and just gives a false sense of security. Firearms legislation will only impact on the legitimate users and not on those who want to cause harm. Our 'strict Firearms laws' didn't prevent the Cumbrian shootings and if you think that an individual couldn't recreate the evil of the Hungerford or Dunblaine shootings with just a 12g side-by-side shotgun I think you're mistaken.

Even without obtaining an illegally held firearms (plenty out there evidently -https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/ ... s/firearms), a deranged individual can readily find alternatives, turning to DIY explosives in the cases of the 7 July London and Manchester Arena bombings. Or just an HGV in the case of the 2016 Nice attack, which killed 86.

I don't have any great solution that would prevent such incidents and I'm certainly am not in favour of allowing civilians to carry firearms routinely in this country, there's just no need nor is it in any way part of our culture. But legislating against sporting use of firearms is a demonstrably pointless measure even if the legislation is enforced.

Triffid

It is not a "demonstrably pointless measure" when either a. You wish to reduce civilian ownership of firearms to a de minimus or b. You have a problem which you cannot address in the illegal, so the only option that you are left with is to deflect onto those that you can - the lawful firearms owner hands tied by both ineffective representation and registration.

This will be why "yellow hand" has been welcomed with such interest and open arms - we are all so jealous of those freedoms.

DaveB wrote:

That last paragraph is great Sim G. Mind if I borrow it for a letter to the editor here in NZ?

Please do, Dave!

Triffid wrote:

Pippin89 wrote:I don't blame the lack of restriction in NZ, but the lack of enforcement of those restrictions. Hence why I agree with the strict way in which our laws are enforced. You have to say, the chances of a similar incident happening here are pretty slim! I understand why the US don't want a system like ours and what works for us might not work for them. But in terms of keeping guns away from the wrong people (at least legal ones) our system does work. Like I said I don't agree with all of it. Especially with what can and can't be owned and the "licence every gun thats owned" bit but for the checks that happen before a gun can be purchased in the UK, I agree with what we have to go through.
The fact that the current system (or before the recent changes) works is exactly why I disagree with the change to medical assessment. It did work the way it was so why change it?

Sorry Pippin, but I have to challenge you on that view, because it plays straight into the hands of the anti-gun lobby & legislators. And before you know it that will be the end of our sport.

To me the idea that 'the chances of similar incidents happening here are slim' is just plain wrong and just gives a false sense of security. Firearms legislation will only impact on the legitimate users and not on those who want to cause harm. Our 'strict Firearms laws' didn't prevent the Cumbrian shootings and if you think that an individual couldn't recreate the evil of the Hungerford or Dunblaine shootings with just a 12g side-by-side shotgun I think you're mistaken.

Even without obtaining an illegally held firearms (plenty out there evidently -https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/ ... s/firearms), a deranged individual can readily find alternatives, turning to DIY explosives in the cases of the 7 July London and Manchester Arena bombings. Or just an HGV in the case of the 2016 Nice attack, which killed 86.

I don't have any great solution that would prevent such incidents and I'm certainly am not in favour of allowing civilians to carry firearms routinely in this country, there's just no need nor is it in any way part of our culture. But legislating against sporting use of firearms is a demonstrably pointless measure even if the legislation is enforced.

Triffid

When I said a the chances of a similar incident happening here are slim, I was referring to a licenced, legal firearm owner going on a mass killing spree. Note that you have listed the only 3 incidents in the last 33 years... That I would call slim!

And in, at least the most recent case, a failing of the system allowed him to have access to guns, not the system itself. He had known mental health issues and was being investigated by HMRC. Both of which should have had his licence revoked but police failed to do it. This goes to show that the rules still worked, it was the enforcement of them that was lacking. Since then the rules have been much more strictly followed and this is why I say the chances of a similar incident today are slim. Not zero but slim.

So you're saying feeling a bit blue or being investigated by the tax man is grounds to revoke certification and remove a persons property? Wow...

And were concerned about an anti-gun government?!

Pippin89 wrote: And in, at least the most recent case, a failing of the system allowed him to have access to guns, not the system itself. He had known mental health issues and was being investigated by HMRC. Both of which should have had his licence revoked but police failed to do it.

Actually, Derek Bird didn't have mental health issues....



https://www.standard.co.uk/news/derrick ... 83227.html

Pippin89 wrote:
When I said a the chances of a similar incident happening here are slim, I was referring to a licenced, legal firearm owner going on a mass killing spree. Note that you have listed the only 3 incidents in the last 33 years... That I would call slim!

And in, at least the most recent case, a failing of the system allowed him to have access to guns, not the system itself. He had known mental health issues and was being investigated by HMRC. Both of which should have had his licence revoked but police failed to do it. This goes to show that the rules still worked, it was the enforcement of them that was lacking. Since then the rules have been much more strictly followed and this is why I say the chances of a similar incident today are slim. Not zero but slim.

But these mass shootings weren't exactly a daily occurrence in New Zealand either. When applied correctly, the law was adequate. It wasn't applied adequately and now all the law-abiding have suffered.

I'm interested in how you feel the previous NZ firearms laws failed over and above the police not doing their job properly. And how it would be any different to how it could fail here.

RDC wrote:

Pippin89 wrote:
When I said a the chances of a similar incident happening here are slim, I was referring to a licenced, legal firearm owner going on a mass killing spree. Note that you have listed the only 3 incidents in the last 33 years... That I would call slim!

And in, at least the most recent case, a failing of the system allowed him to have access to guns, not the system itself. He had known mental health issues and was being investigated by HMRC. Both of which should have had his licence revoked but police failed to do it. This goes to show that the rules still worked, it was the enforcement of them that was lacking. Since then the rules have been much more strictly followed and this is why I say the chances of a similar incident today are slim. Not zero but slim.

But these mass shootings weren't exactly a daily occurrence in New Zealand either. When applied correctly, the law was adequate. It wasn't applied adequately and now all the law-abiding have suffered.

I'm interested in how you feel the previous NZ firearms laws failed over and above the police not doing their job properly. And how it would be any different to how it could fail here.

You realise you are arguing the same point as me right?? I quite literally said the laws were adequate but the application of them failed. Something which doesn't happen here these days because the laws are applied more strictly.